Does Umpire's Call need to go?

[Lillian Thomson]

Yea but if you gave batsmen unlimited reviews you just know they'll just review everything, including when they're bowled, just hoping an umpire missed the no ball.

I'm not against it, but then at that point you may as well say that all dismissals get reviewed no matter what. At the very least they'll check the no-ball, if nothing else.

That would be okay. The no ball can be checked in seconds.

 

[Starfighter]

Na, batsmen can go get ****ed.

 

[trundler]

That doesn't prevent Dharmasena getting his ass saved by dubious umpire's calls anyway.

 

[Daemon]

Was just thinking of a scenario this morning after the appeal against Pujara.

Lets say a batsmen is give out caught bat pad. He reviews it and it turns out he's not hit it. The third umpire then also checks hawkeye in case, and it's shown to be clipping. On the basis of the umpires call it's given out.

But the umpires call was in relation to the bat pad catch and not the LBW. Should it be taken into consideration at all?

This is a really fringe scenario though but I imagine it'll happen eventually if it hasn't already.

 

[Kraken]

Was just thinking of a scenario this morning after the appeal against Pujara.

Lets say a batsmen is give out caught bat pad. He reviews it and it turns out he's not hit it. The third umpire then also checks hawkeye in case, and it's shown to be clipping. On the basis of the umpires call it's given out.

But the umpires call was in relation to the bat pad catch and not the LBW. Should it be taken into consideration at all?

This is a really fringe scenario though but I imagine it'll happen eventually if it hasn't already.

yeah that's a really good question. I would imagine the umpire would have to relay their thought on the LBW (i.e whether they think it was out or not) in that instance, otherwise that's a big grey area

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Why would the third ump check Hawkeye though

 

[Daemon]

Why would the third ump check Hawkeye though

Because he's not hit it and it might be LBW? It just happened 20 minutes ago to Pujara.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Oh OK I thought umps could only check the specific dismissal.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

In theory on the basis of umpires call it should switch from Out to Not Out. If he thought he hit it he couldn’t possibly make an Out call on the field. In practice the the umpires call probably stands as Out.

 

[harsh.ag]

It's not out obvsly why is it even a question

 

[honestbharani]

Ideally, if the appeal is for a catch and you are checking the LBW to be sure, the call should be considered not out on the basis of the benefit of doubt tradition.

 

[SteveNZ]

Was just thinking of a scenario this morning after the appeal against Pujara.

Lets say a batsmen is give out caught bat pad. He reviews it and it turns out he's not hit it. The third umpire then also checks hawkeye in case, and it's shown to be clipping. On the basis of the umpires call it's given out.

But the umpires call was in relation to the bat pad catch and not the LBW. Should it be taken into consideration at all?

This is a really fringe scenario though but I imagine it'll happen eventually if it hasn't already.

Do you mean because it was umpire's call out for the catch and should that apply to the lbw (ie out unless enough evidence to overturn?) Surely not. The umpire didn't adjudicate on that dismissal. However, if it was sent up to check caught bat pad and was deemed to be three reds for lbw (or vice versa, was not out lbw wise but he hit it and was caught) then I'd be OK with it.

Umpire's call still sucks, incidentally.

 

[Line and Length]

The catch/lbw situation reminds me of an incident when I was umpiring. An 'offie' was operating and there was a big appeal for close-in bat pad catch which I gave out. At tea, the player's captain approached me and said, "His bat was nowhere near it,. He had it tucked behind his pad." I responded, "I was giving him lbw for not offering a shot.The ball hit him outside the line but was spinning in towards the stumps."

 

[wpdavid]

The catch/lbw situation reminds me of an incident when I was umpiring. An 'offie' was operating and there was a big appeal for close-in bat pad catch which I gave out. At tea, the player's captain approached me and said, "His bat was nowhere near it,. He had it tucked behind his pad." I responded, "I was giving him lbw for not offering a shot. The ball hit him outside the line but was spinning in towards the stumps."

Hopefully you then told him to be a good boy and **** right off for whinging about your decision anyway.

 

[Line and Length]

Hopefully you then told him to be a good boy and **** right off for whinging about your decision anyway.

He was a good bloke with whom I always shared a beer after the game. His only reaction was to say, "Sh*t ... I'd better change it in the scorebook."

 

[josephina]

Hawkeye is accurate to 3.6mm. If there is umpire's call, it should be that distance, not half a ball.

Personally I would be happy to get rid of umpire's call. It won't disadvantage any particular team. It is equal to batsmen v bowlers.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think umpire's call needs to be tweeked a little bit. When it shows on Hawkeye as being close but registers umpire's call, then a random call should be placed to any registered umpire around the world, and they get to say whether or not it is out regardless of whether they are watching the match or not. Would add a real sense of intrigue to all referred decisions.

 

[Spark]

I still don't see how the game would be improved by even more LBWs.

 

[josephina]

I still don't see how the game would be improved by even more LBWs.

I don't how it is fair that you use your leg to stop a ball hitting the stumps.

 

[sunilz]

I still don't see how the game would be improved by even more LBWs.

I remember reading a comment on Cricbuzz on 1st day of this test that whether the pitch is flat because England had a 40 runs partnership and no wicket had fallen for last 15 overs.

Some people actually want test cricket to be over in 3 days .